People vs. Breis, 767 SCRA 40, August 17, 2015

3/9/24, 3:21 PM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 767 Copy
G.R. No. 205823. August 17, 2015.*
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, appellee, vs. REGIE

BREIS y ALVARADO and GARY YUMOL y TUAZON,**
appellants.
Criminal Law; Dangerous Drugs Act; Chain of Custody Rule;

Section 21, paragraph 1, Article II of Republic Act (RA) No. 9165
provides the procedure to be followed in the seizure and custody of
dangerous drugs.—The PDEA agents who apprehended
appellants did not deviate from the procedure prescribed by law
and regulations. Section 21, paragraph 1, Article II of RA 9165
provides the procedure to be followed in the seizure and custody of
dangerous drugs: 1) The apprehending team having initial
custody and control of the drugs shall, immediately after seizure
and confiscation, physically inventory and photograph the same
in the presence of the accused or the person/s from whom such
items were confiscated and/or seized, or his/her representative or
counsel, a representative from the media and the Department of
Justice, and any elected public official who shall be required to
sign the copies of the inventory and be given a copy thereof. This
is implemented by Section 21(a), Article II of the Implementing
Rules and Regulations (IRR) of RA 9165, which reads: (a) The
apprehending officer/team having initial custody and control of
the drugs shall, immediately after seizure and confis-
_______________
* SECOND DIVISION.
** Also referred to in the Records as Gary Yumul y Tuazon.
41
VOL. 767, AUGUST 17, 2015 41

People vs. Breis
cation, physically inventory and photograph the same

Justice (DOJ), and any elected public official who shall be
https://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000018e221bda42e889e056000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 1/31
required to sign the copies of the inventory and be given a copy

thereof: Provided, that the physical inventory and
photograph shall be conducted at the place where the
search warrant is served; or at the nearest police station
or at the nearest office of the apprehending officer/team,
whichever is practicable, in case of warrantless seizures;
Provided, further, that noncompliance with these requirements
under justifiable grounds, as long as the integrity and the
evidentiary value of the seized items are properly preserved by
the apprehending officer/team, shall not render void and invalid
such seizures of and custody over said items.
Same; Same; Same; Marking; Marking is not a requirement of
Republic Act (RA) No. 9165 or its implementing rules and
regulations (IRR), but has been held to be an initial stage in the
chain of custody.—What IO1 Mangili did in the bus upon seizure
of the drugs was to mark the same, which is not to be confused
with taking the physical inventory. Marking is not a requirement
of RA 9165 or its IRR, but has been held to be an initial stage in
the chain of custody.
Same; Same; Same; Chain of custody means the duly recorded
authorized movements and custody of seized drugs from the time
of seizure/confiscation to receipt in the forensic laboratory to
safekeeping to presentation in court for destruction.—Chain of
custody means the duly recorded authorized movements and
custody of seized drugs from the time of seizure/confiscation to
receipt in the forensic laboratory to safekeeping to presentation in
court for destruction. What assumes primary importance in drug
cases is the prosecution’s proof, to the point of moral certainty,
that the prohibited drug presented in court as evidence against
the accused is the same item recovered from his possession.
Same; Same; Same; Links that the Prosecution Must
Endeavor to Establish with Respect to the Chain of Custody.—The
links that the prosecution must endeavor to establish with respect
to the chain of custody are the following: first, the seizure and
marking, if practicable, of the illegal drug recovered from the
accused by the appre-
42
42 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

People vs. Breis
hending officer; second, the turnover of the illegal drug seized

by the apprehending officer to the investigating officer; third, the
turnover by the investigating officer of the illegal drug to the
forensic chemist for laboratory examination; and fourth, the
turnover and submission of the marked illegal drug seized from

the forensic chemist to the court.
Constitutional Law; Criminal Procedure; Warrantless
Searches and Seizures; Warrantless Arrests; It is well-settled that
no arrest, search and seizure can be made without a valid warrant
issued by a competent judicial authority.—Although it was not
raised as an error, it is imperative that we rule on the validity of
the warrantless search and seizure and the subsequent
warrantless arrest of appellants. It is well-settled that no arrest,
search and seizure can be made without a valid warrant issued by
a competent judicial authority. No less than the Constitution
guarantees this right — The right of the people to be secure in
their persons, houses, papers, and effects against unreasonable
searches and seizures of whatever nature and for any purpose
shall be inviolable, and no search warrant or warrant of arrest
shall issue except upon probable cause to be determined
personally by the judge after examination under oath or
affirmation of the complainant and the witnesses he may produce,
and particularly describing the place to be searched and the
persons or things to be seized.
Same; Same; Same; Moving Vehicles; The rule against
warrantless searches and seizures admits of exceptions, such as
the search of moving vehicles.—Any evidence obtained in violation
of this provision is inadmissible for any purpose in any
proceeding. However, the rule against warrantless searches and
seizures admits of exceptions, such as the search of moving
vehicles. In People v. Libnao, 395 SCRA 407 (2003), the Court
held: Warrantless search and seizure of moving vehicles are
allowed in recognition of the impracticability of securing a
warrant under said circumstances as the vehicle can be quickly
moved out of the locality or jurisdiction in which the warrant may
be sought. Peace officers in such cases, however, are limited to
routine checks where the examination of the vehicle is limited to
visual inspection. When a vehicle is stopped and subjected to an
extensive search, such would be constitutionally permissible only
if the officers made it upon probable cause, i.e., upon a belief,
reasonably arising out of circumstances known to the seizing
officer,
43
VOL. 767, AUGUST 17, 2015 43

People vs. Breis
that an automobile or other vehicle contains a[n] item, article

or object which by law is subject to seizure and destruction.
Same; Same; Same; Probable Cause; Although the term eludes

exact definition, probable cause signifies a reasonable ground of
suspicion supported by circumstances sufficiently strong in
themselves to warrant a cautious man’s belief that the person
accused is guilty of the offense with which he is charged; or the
existence of such facts and circumstances which could lead a
reasonably discreet and prudent man to believe that an offense has
been committed and that the items, articles or objects sought in
connection with said offense or subject to seizure and destruction
by law are in the place to be searched.—Although the term eludes
exact definition, probable cause signifies a reasonable ground of
suspicion supported by circumstances sufficiently strong in
themselves to warrant a cautious man’s belief that the person
accused is guilty of the offense with which he is charged; or the
existence of such facts and circumstances which could lead a
reasonably discreet and prudent man to believe that an offense
has been committed and that the items, articles or objects sought
in connection with said offense or subject to seizure and
destruction by law are in the place to be searched. The
determination of probable cause must be resolved according to the
facts of each case.
Same; Same; Same; Same; The Supreme Court (SC) has ruled
in several dangerous drug cases that tipped information is
sufficient probable cause to effect a warrantless search.—The
Court has ruled in several dangerous drug cases that tipped
information is sufficient probable cause to effect a warrantless
search. In People v. Mariacos, 621 SCRA 327 (2010), the police
received at dawn information that a baggage of marijuana was
loaded on a passenger jeepney about to leave for the poblacion.
There, the informant described the bag containing the prohibited
drugs. The Court held that the police had probable cause to
search the packages allegedly containing illegal drugs.
Criminal Law; Resistance to a Person in Authority; Before a
person can be held guilty of the crime of resistance or disobedience
to a person in authority, it must be shown beyond reasonable
doubt that the accused knew that the person he disobeyed or
resisted is a person in authority or the agent of such person who is
actually engaged in
44

People vs. Breis
the performance of his official duties.—The act of Breis in

physically pushing IO1 Mangili and attempting to flee constitutes
resistance defined under Article 151 of the Revised Penal Code
(RPC). Before a person can be held guilty of the crime of

resistance or disobedience to a person in authority, it must be
shown beyond reasonable doubt that the accused knew that the
person he disobeyed or resisted is a person in authority or the
agent of such person who is actually engaged in the performance
of his official duties. As a PDEA agent, IO1 Mangili is a law
enforcement agent and as such is an agent of a person in
authority as defined in the RPC. IO1 Mangili was in the act of
investigating a lead, and possibly apprehending violators of RA
9165, in accordance with the mandate of the PDEA. He
announced his identity as such agent to appellants. It may even
be gleaned that knowing that IO1 Mangili was a PDEA agent was
precisely the cause of the attempted flight of appellants.
Same; Same; The laying of hands or using physical force
against agents of persons in authority when not serious in nature
constitutes resistance or disobedience under Article 151, and not
direct assault under Article 148 of the Revised Penal Code (RPC).
—The laying of hands or using physical force against agents of
persons in authority when not serious in nature constitutes
resistance or disobedience under Article 151, and not direct
assault under Article 148 of the RPC. This is because the gravity
of the disobedience to an order of a person in authority or his
agent is measured by the circumstances surrounding the act, the
motives prompting it and the real importance of the
transgression, rather than the source of the order disobeyed. The
pushing of IO1 Mangili is not of such serious defiance to be
considered direct assault, but is resistance nonetheless.
Same; Same; The Supreme Court (SC) has held justified
resistance to illegal or abusive acts of agents of persons in
authority.—The Court has held justified resistance to illegal or
abusive acts of agents of persons in authority. In People v. Chan
Fook, 42 Phil. 230 (1921), the Court quoted Groizard: A person in
authority, his agent or a public officer who exceeds his power can
not be said to be in the exercise of the functions of his office. The
law that defines and establishes his powers does not protect him
for anything that has not been provided for. The scope of the
respective powers of public officers and their agents is fixed. If
they go beyond it and they violate any recognized rights of the
citizens, then the latter may resist the invasion, spe-
45
VOL. 767, AUGUST 17, 2015 45

People vs. Breis
cially when it is clear and manifest. The resistance must be

coextensive with the excess, and should not be greater than what
is necessary to repel the aggression. The invasion of the

prerogatives or rights of another and the excess in the functions of
an office, are the sources that make for legitimate resistance,
especially, insofar as it is necessary for the defense of the persons
or their rights in the manner provided for in Article 8 of the Penal
Code.
Constitutional Law; Criminal Procedure; Warrantless
Searches and Seizures; The bus is public transportation, and is
open to the public. The expectation of privacy in relation to the
constitutional right against unreasonable searches in a public bus
is not the same as that in a person’s dwelling.—Unlike the officer
in Chan Fook, IO1 Mangili did not exceed his authority in the
performance of his duty. Prior to Breis’ resistance, IO1 Mangili
laid nary a finger on Breis or Yumol. Neither did his presence in
the bus constitute an excess of authority. The bus is public
transportation, and is open to the public. The expectation of
privacy in relation to the constitutional right against
unreasonable searches in a public bus is not the same as that in a
person’s dwelling. In fact, at that point in time, only the bus was
being searched, not Yumol, Breis, or their belongings, and the
search of moving vehicles has been upheld.
Same; Same; Same; In the United States, abandoned articles,
such as those thrown away, are considered bona vacantia, and
may be lawfully searched and seized by law enforcement
authorities.—In the United States, abandoned articles, such as
those thrown away, are considered bona vacantia, and may be
lawfully searched and seized by law enforcement authorities. Put
to question in Abel v. United States, 362 U.S. 217 (1960), was the
admissibility of incriminating articles, which had been thrown
away, that the Federal Bureau of Investigation recovered without
warrant. The USSC held that the articles were abandoned and
that there was nothing unlawful in the government’s
appropriation of such abandoned property. In Hester v. United
States, 265 U.S. 57 (1924), defendants and his associates ran
away from officers, and in the process discarded a jar and a jug.
The USSC held no Fourth Amendment violation occurred when
officers examined the contents of the discarded items without
warrant. In California v. Hodari, 499 U.S. 621 (1991), police
officers, without warrant, pursued defendant who threw a rock of
cocaine into an alley as he was running. The USSC upheld the
admissibility
46

People vs. Breis
of the abandoned cocaine. Applied analogously, there is no

objectionable warrantless search and seizure of the box of
marijuana abandoned in the bus by appellants.
Criminal Law; Denial; Frame-up; The defenses of denial and
frame-up cannot prevail over the positive and categorical
assertions of the Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency (PDEA)
agents who were strangers to appellants and against whom no ill
motive was established.—Appellants’ defenses of denial and
frame-up were disbelieved by both the trial court and the Court of
Appeals. It is a settled rule that the evaluation of the credibility of
witnesses and their testimonies is a matter best undertaken by
the trial court because of its unique opportunity to observe the
witnesses firsthand and to note their demeanor, conduct and
attitude under grilling examination. We find no reason to deviate
from this rule. The defenses of denial and frame-up cannot prevail
over the positive and categorical assertions of the PDEA agents
who were strangers to appellants and against whom no ill motive
was established. Further, such defenses failed to overcome the
documentary and physical evidence presented by the prosecution.
Same; Dangerous Drugs Act; Illegal Possession of Dangerous
Drugs; Penalties; The penalty for illegal possession of dangerous
drugs is provided in Section 11 of Republic Act (RA) No. 9165.—
The penalty for illegal possession of dangerous drugs is provided
in Section 11 of RA 9165: SEC. 11. Possession of Dangerous
Drugs.—The penalty of life imprisonment to death and a fine
ranging from Five hundred thousand pesos (P500,000.00) to Ten
million pesos (P10,000,000.00) shall be imposed upon any person,
who, unless authorized by law, shall possess any dangerous drug
in the following quantities, regardless of the degree of purity
thereof: x x x x 7) 500 grams or more of marijuana. x x x x The
penalty imposed upon appellants is in order.
APPEAL from a decision of the Court of Appeals.

The facts are stated in the opinion of the Court.
Office of the Solicitor General for appellee.
Public Attorney’s Office for appellants.
CARPIO, J.:
The Case
This is an appeal from the Decision1 dated 26 June 2012

of the Court of Appeals in C.A.-G.R. CR-H.C. No. 04916,
affirming the Decision2 dated 14 February 2011 of the
Regional Trial Court, Branch 61, Baguio City (trial court)
in Criminal Case No. 30409-R.
The Facts
Appellants Regie Breis y Alvarado (Breis) and Gary

Yumol y Tuazon (Yumol) were charged with violation of
Section 11 of Republic Act No. 9165 (RA 9165) as follows:
That in the afternoon of February 10, 2010, at Gov. Pack Road,

this City, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this
Honorable Court, the above named accused, in conspiracy with
each other, did then and there willfully, unlawfully, and
feloniously have in their possession, custody and control
marijuana with a recorded net weight of 8,181 grams of dried
marijuana leaves/
fruiting tops wrapped in plastic and further wrapped with brown
packaging tape and placed inside a brown box, without the
authority of law and knowing fully well that said dried marijuana
leaves/fruiting tops are dangerous drugs, in violation of the
aforecited provisions of law.
CONTRARY TO LAW to Sec. 11 of RA 9165.3
Upon arraignment, appellants pleaded not guilty. Trial

ensued, where the prosecution presented witnesses
Intelligence Officers 1 Elizer Mangili (IO1 Mangili) and
Ryan Peralta (IO1
_______________
1 Rollo, pp. 2-16. Penned by Associate Justice Rebecca De Guia-

Salvador, with Associate Justices Normandie B. Pizarro and Rodil V.
Zalameda, concurring.
2 Records, pp. 179-185. Penned by Judge Antonio C. Reyes.
3 Rollo, p. 3.
48

People vs. Breis
Peralta) of the Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency-

Cordillera Administrative Region (PDEA-CAR); while the
defense presented the testimonies of appellants.
Version of the Prosecution
The prosecution’s version of the facts, as summarized by

the trial court, is as follows:
Around 3:00 o’clock PM of February 10, 2009 (sic), an

informant went to the PDEA-CAR field office at Melvin Jones,
Harrison Road, Baguio City and offered the information that the
accused were bound to transport a box of marijuana from Baguio
City to Dau, Mabalacat, Pampanga. Mangili gathered that the
accused have been frequently traveling from Pampanga to Baguio

to get marijuana bricks from their supplier at La Trinidad,
Benguet. Mangili referred the informant to Senior PDEA Officer
Tacio for further interview and then the matter was referred to
the PDEA Officer-in-Charge Edgar Apalla, who after careful
evaluation, ordered Agent Tacio to form a team for the
entrapment of the accused.
Agent Tacio created a team composed of Mangili and Peralta as
arresting officer and seizing officer, respectively, and briefed them
on the operations to be conducted. Tacio disclosed to the team that
the accused were to transport by a public transport bus from
Baguio City to Dau, Pampanga bricks of marijuana packed in a
carton and that the departure from Baguio was scheduled at
around 5:00 o’clock PM of that day. The accused Breis would be in
a white t-shirt with “Starbucks” logo and dark jeans while
accused Yumol would be wearing a black t-shirt with a white
print and blue jeans. Both the accused were described as standing
about 5 feet and 5 inches, thin, and dark complexion.
When the briefing was through, the team proceeded to the
Genesis Bus terminal at Governor Pack Road, Baguio City at
around 4:30 o’clock PM. Due to time constraints, the PDEA team
chose not to secure any warrant nor coordinate with the nearest
police station.
49
VOL. 767, AUGUST 17, 2015 49

People vs. Breis
Upon reaching the bus terminal, Mangili asked the bus

conductor to identify the bus which would leave at 5:00 o’clock
PM. Mangili was directed to Genesis bus with plate number TXX
890. Thus, pretending to be passengers, Mangili and Peralta
boarded the bus and they observed two male individuals whose
physical appearances fitted the descriptions given by the
informant. Both agents likewise saw a box placed in between the
legs of accused Breis.
Mangili sat behind the accused while Peralta, stood near where
the accused were seated. In order to have a clearer view of the box
tucked in between the feet of accused Breis if the same fit the box
described by informant, Mangili took the seat opposite where the
accused were seated and saw that the box was with the markings
“Ginebra San Miguel” and which was described by the informant.
Mangili then casually asked accused Yumol who owned the
“Ginebra San Miguel” box, the accused replied that it was theirs.
Accused Yumol suddenly stood up and tried to leave but before
he could do so, Peralta blocked his way while Mangili confronted
accused Breis and asked what was contained in the box. Instead
of answering, Breis shoved Mangili and tried to flee but Mangili

was able to block his way as he was much larger than the accused
Yumol (sic). Mangili ordered him to sit down.
Agent Peralta then summoned the backup officers to help
secure the bus and subdue the accused. After introducing
themselves as PDEA agents, Mangili asked the accused Breis to
open the box but Breis ignored the request which made Mangili
lift and open the box. He took one brick and discovered it was
marijuana. The “Ginebra San Miguel” box yielded three more
bricks of marijuana. Mangili then marked the items on site.
Agent Peralta then informed the accused that they were being
arrested for violation of Rep. Act No. 9165 and then he read their
constitutional rights in Pilipino to them.
50

People vs. Breis
Thereafter, the team returned to the PDEA-CAR office of

Melvin Jones, Baguio City for documentation such as the
preparation of the affidavits of Agents Mangili and Peralta,
Booking Sheet and Arrest Report of both accused, Request for
Physical Exam and Request for Laboratory Exam. Inventory
likewise was done around 7:43 o’clock PM on February 10, 2010 at
the said PDEA-CAR office.
After the documentation and inventory, the accused were
brought to the Baguio General Hospital and Medical Center
(BGHMC) and Medico-Legal Certificates were issued showing
that the accused had no external signs of physical injuries at the
time of their examination. Chemistry Report No. D-08-2010
indicates that the confiscated items from the accused yielded
positive to (sic) the presence of marijuana, a dangerous drugs (
sic).4
Version of the Defense
The defense’s version of the facts, as summarized by the

trial court, is as follows:
Accused, both construction workers, left Dau, Mabalacat,

Pampanga for Baguio at around 6:00 o’clock AM of February 9,
2010 to visit a certain Edwin Garcia, an acquaintance and a
resident of Loakan, Baguio City. Edwin Garcia had offered the
accused to be upholsterers in his upholstery business way back in
December of 2008.
At around 11:00 o’clock AM, the accused arrived in Baguio City
and because they did not know the exact address and contact
number of Edwin Garcia, they took a chance and decided to take a

cab to Loakan. However, they failed to find Garcia’s house despite
asking the residents of Loakan. So, they decided to go back to the
Genesis bus terminal and go back home to Pampanga.
Upon reaching the terminal, they ate and took the 4:30 o’clock
PM bus for Pampanga. They were already
_______________
4 Records, pp. 179-180.
51
VOL. 767, AUGUST 17, 2015 51

People vs. Breis
boarded when accused Yumol stepped out to buy a bottle of water.

Thereafter, Mangili went near accused Breis and uttered
something inaudible, and thinking that the seat he was occupying
was Mangili’s, accused Breis stood up to give up his seat but
instead Mangili pushed him and accused Breis asked what seems
to be the problem. Mangili then asked if he owns the box under
the seat in front of his, Breis replied in the negative. Mangili then
opened the box, got one of the bricks contained therein, sliced the
same and saw that it was marijuana. Accused Breis, infuriated,
retorted that the accusation is baseless and malicious.
Mangili then summoned his companions and they dragged
accused Breis outside the bus when suddenly, accused Yumol
arrived and inquired what the commotion was all about. The
group then asked if he (Yumol) was a companion of accused Breis
and when he answered positively, Yumol was likewise
apprehended.
Both the accused were then brought to the PDEA Office and
were forced to admit ownership of the box of marijuana, but they
refused and thus they were hit with the bricks of marijuana. One
of the agents even squeezed the scrotum of accused Yumol in the
hope that he will admit ownership over the box of marijuana.5
The Trial Court’s Ruling
The trial court gave credence to the prosecution’s

version, upholding the presumption of regularity in favor of
the PDEA agents and finding no evil or ill motive on their
part. On the other hand, the trial court found appellants’
defense of frame-up too incredible and outlandishly
preposterous. The trial court also held that the warrantless
search and seizure and the warrantless arrest of appellants
were valid. The dispositive portion of the decision reads:6
_______________
5 Id., at pp. 180-181.

6 CA Rollo, p. 19.
52

People vs. Breis
WHEREFORE, judgment is rendered finding the accused Regie

Breis y Alvarado and Gary Yumol y Tuazon GUILTY beyond any
reasonable doubt and they are hereby sentenced to suffer the
penalty of LIFE IMPRISONMENT and each to pay a fine of
P5,000,000.00.
Both the accused are immediately ORDERED TO BE
TRANSFERRED to the National Penitentiary in Muntinlupa
City, Metro Manila.
SO ORDERED.7
The lone assignment of error in the Brief for the

Accused-Appellants is as follows:
THE TRIAL COURT GRAVELY ERRED IN FINDING THE

ACCUSED-APPELLANTS GUILTY OF THE CRIME CHARGED
BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT.8
In their appeal, appellants argued that the PDEA agents

did not comply with Section 21, paragraph 1, Article II of
RA 9165, and that the prosecution failed to establish the
chain of custody over the seized items.
The Court of Appeals’ Ruling
The Court of Appeals affirmed the decision of the trial

court, holding that the requirements of Section 21, Article
II of RA 9165 were satisfied. Further, the Court of Appeals
found no break in the custody of the seized items that
might compromise their evidentiary integrity. The
appellate court also upheld the legality of the warrantless
search and arrest of appellants. The dispositive portion of
the decision of the Court of Appeals reads:
WHEREFORE, the foregoing premises considered, the

appealed Decision dated February 14, 2011 of the
_______________
7 Records, p. 185.
8 CA Rollo, p. 34.
53
VOL. 767, AUGUST 17, 2015 53

People vs. Breis
Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Baguio City, Branch 61, in

Criminal Case No. 30409-R, is AFFIRMED in toto.
SO ORDERED.9
In the present appeal, appellants and appellee adopted

their respective briefs10 filed before the Court of Appeals as
their supplemental briefs.11
The Court’s Ruling
The appeal is without merit.
Procedure on Seizure and Custody of Drugs
Appellants argue that the procedure on seizure and

custody of drugs, specified in Section 21, paragraph 1,
Article II of RA 9165, was not complied with. In support of
this contention, appellants state that: (1) the PDEA agents
did not immediately conduct the inventory at the place
where the items were seized, and did so only at the PDEA-
CAR field office;12 and (2) the representatives from the
media, barangay and Department of Justice (DOJ) were
present during the inventory conducted at the field office,
but not at the place of the seizure during actual
confiscation.13
Appellants are mistaken. The PDEA agents who
apprehended appellants did not deviate from the procedure
prescribed by law and regulations. Section 21, paragraph 1,
Article II of RA 9165 provides the procedure to be followed
in the seizure and custody of dangerous drugs:
1) The apprehending team having initial custody and control

of the drugs shall, immediately after seizure
_______________
9 Id., at p. 101.
10 Id., at pp. 32-45, 59-84.
11 Rollo, pp. 39-40.
12 CA Rollo, pp. 39-40.
13 Id., at pp. 40-41.
54

People vs. Breis
and confiscation, physically inventory and photograph the same

Justice, and any elected public official who shall be required to
sign the copies of the inventory and be given a copy thereof.
This is implemented by Section 21(a), Article II of the

Implementing Rules and Regulations (IRR) of RA 9165,
which reads:
(a) The apprehending officer/team having initial custody and

control of the drugs shall, immediately after seizure and
confiscation, physically inventory and photograph the
same in the presence of the accused or the person/s from whom
such items were confiscated and/or seized, or his/her
representative or counsel, a representative from the media and
the Department of Justice (DOJ), and any elected public official
who shall be required to sign the copies of the inventory and be
given a copy thereof: Provided, that the physical inventory and
photograph shall be conducted at the place where the
search warrant is served; or at the nearest police station
or at the nearest office of the apprehending officer/team,
whichever is practicable, in case of warrantless seizures;
Provided, further, that noncompliance with these requirements
under justifiable grounds, as long as the integrity and the
evidentiary value of the seized items are properly preserved by
the apprehending officer/team, shall not render void and invalid
such seizures of and custody over said items; x x x. (Boldfacing
and underscoring supplied)
Appellants insist that the PDEA agents should have

conducted the inventory at the place where the drugs were
seized. However, the IRR clearly provides that in case of
warrantless seizures, the physical inventory and
photograph shall be conducted at the nearest police station
or at the nearest office of the apprehending team. The
physical inventory and
55
VOL. 767, AUGUST 17, 2015 55

People vs. Breis
photograph were conducted at the PDEA-CAR field office, a

fact that appellants themselves acknowledge14 and testified
to by IO1 Mangili15 and IO1 Peralta.16
The requirement of the presence of a representative
from the media and the DOJ, and any elected public official
during the physical inventory and photograph was also
complied with. The representatives from the media and the
DOJ and an elected barangay official were present at the
inventory conducted at the PDEA-CAR field office, as
evidenced by their signatures17 on the Inventory of Seized
Item18 and photographs taken during the inventory.19 In
fact, this is not contested by appellants.20
Hence, we find no deviation from the procedure
prescribed by Section 21, paragraph 1, Article II of RA 9165
and its IRR.
Chain of Custody Established
What IO1 Mangili did in the bus upon seizure of the

drugs was to mark the same, which is not to be confused
with taking the physical inventory. Marking is not a
requirement of RA 9165 or its IRR, but has been held to be
an initial stage in the chain of custody:
Nonetheless, the Court has acknowledged the practical value of

the process of marking the confiscated contraband and considered
it as an initial stage in the chain of custody — a process
preliminary and preparatory to the physical inventory and
photograph requirements in Section 21 of Republic Act No. 9165:
_______________
14 Brief for the Accused-Appellants, id., at pp. 39-40.

15 TSN, 12 May 2010, pp. 26, 30-31; TSN, 7 July 2010, p. 25.
16 TSN, 25 August 2010, pp. 38-40, 43-44; TSN, 8 November 2010, p.
13.
17 Exhibits “C-1,” “C-2,” and “C-3,” Records, p. 10.
18 Exhibit “C,” id.
19 Exhibits “I,” “I-1,” “I-2,” “I-3,” and “I-4,” id., at pp. 51-55.
20 Brief for the Accused-Appellants, CA Rollo, pp. 40-41.
56

People vs. Breis
This step initiates the process of protecting innocent persons

from dubious and concocted searches, and of protecting as well the
apprehending officers from harassment suits based on planting of
evidence under Section 29 [of Republic act No. 9165] and on
allegations of robbery or theft.
“Marking” is the placing by the apprehending officer of some
distinguishing signs with his/her initials and signature on the
items seized. It helps ensure that the dangerous drugs seized
upon apprehension are the same dangerous drugs subjected to
inventory and photography when these activities are undertaken
at the police station or at some other practicable venue rather
than at the place of arrest. Consistency with the “chain of
custody” rule requires that the “marking” of the seized items — to
truly ensure that they are the same items that enter the chain
and are eventually the ones offered in evidence — should be done
(1) in the presence of the apprehended violator (2) immediately
upon confiscation.
“Immediate confiscation” has no exact definition. Indeed,
marking upon immediate confiscation has been interpreted as to
even include marking at the nearest police station or office of the
apprehending team. In this case, the dangerous drugs taken from
accused-appellants were marked in his presence immediately
upon confiscation at the very venue of his arrest.21 (Citations
omitted)
Chain of custody means the duly recorded authorized

movements and custody of seized drugs from the time of
seizure/confiscation to receipt in the forensic laboratory to
safekeeping to presentation in court for destruction.22 What
assumes primary importance in drug cases is the
prosecution’s proof, to the point of moral certainty, that the
prohibited drug
_______________
21 People v. Somoza, G.R. No. 197250, 13 July 2013, 701 SCRA 525,
545-546.
22 People v. Cervantes, 600 Phil. 819; 581 SCRA 762 (2009).
57
VOL. 767, AUGUST 17, 2015 57

People vs. Breis
presented in court as evidence against the accused is the

same item recovered from his possession.23
Appellants argue that the prosecution was not able to
establish the chain of custody over the seized drugs:
The irregularities in the handling procedure of the seized items

are manifold. There is no indication what steps were taken after
the seizure, whether the items were turned over to the
investigator or to the desk officer before SPO4 Abordo allegedly
delivered it to the crime laboratory.
How can the trial court rule that the integrity of the corpus
delicti was preserved when in fact, the prosecution failed to
identify who was in possession of the marijuana from the place of
the seizure; to whom the same was turned over; and how it came
to the custody of SPO4 Abordo who allegedly delivered the seized
items at (sic) the laboratory. Nor was there any prosecution’s
evidence showing the identity of the person who had the custody
and safekeeping of the drug after its examination and pending
presentation in court.24
Appellants’ argument fails to impress.

The links that the prosecution must endeavor to
establish with respect to the chain of custody are the
following: first, the seizure and marking, if practicable, of
the illegal drug recovered from the accused by the
apprehending officer; second, the turnover of the illegal
drug seized by the apprehending officer to the investigating
officer; third, the turnover by the investigating officer of
the illegal drug to the forensic chemist for laboratory
examination; and fourth, the turnover and submission of
the marked illegal drug seized from the forensic chemist to
the court.25
_______________
23 People v. De Jesus, G.R. No. 191753, 17 September 2012, 680 SCRA

680, 690-691, citing People v. Bautista, 665 Phil. 815, 833; 650 SCRA 689,
708 (2011).
24 CA Rollo, p. 43.
25 People v. Arriola, 681 Phil. 578, 594; 665 SCRA 581, 598 (2012).
58

People vs. Breis
In this case, the prosecution adequately established the

unbroken chain of custody over the marijuana seized from
appellants.
The records show that the seized drugs were marked
immediately upon confiscation by IO1 Mangili with his
initials and signature, the date, and the letters A, B, C or D
to distinguish the bricks, in the presence of appellants.26
The seized drugs were brought, together with
appellants, to the PDEA-CAR field office. IO1 Mangili
acted in both capacities of apprehending officer and
investigating officer. IO1 Mangili and IO1 Peralta testified
that they conducted the investigation and the inventory.27
IO1 Mangili and IO1 Peralta also testified that it was
their evidence custodian, Senior Police Officer 4 Abordo
(SPO4 Abordo), who brought the seized drugs to the Crime
Laboratory for examination.28 A thorough review of the
records reveals that the Request for Laboratory Exam29
shows that the seized drugs were delivered on 10 February
2010 by SPO4 Abordo and received by Police Officer 2
Florendo and Police Senior Inspector Rowena Fajardo
Canlas (PSI Canlas). PSI Canlas was the forensic chemist
who conducted the examination on the seized drugs and
signed Chemistry Report No. D-08-201030 (chemistry
report).
The chemistry report indicates that the “specimen
submitted are retained in this laboratory for future
reference.”31 Through subpoena32 upon PSI Canlas, the
marijuana was brought to court and marked during the
preliminary conference held on 7 April 2010.33
_______________
26 TSN, 12 May 2010, pp. 17-18.

27 TSN, 7 July 2010, pp. 25-26; TSN, 25 August 2010, pp. 37-42.
28 Id., at pp. 26-27; id., at pp. 40-42.
29 Exhibit “F,” Records, p. 14.
30 Exhibit “G,” id., at p. 34.
31 Id.
32 Id., at p. 29.
33 Minutes of Preliminary Conference, id., at p. 31.
59
VOL. 767, AUGUST 17, 2015 59

People vs. Breis
Appellants contend that the prosecution’s failure to

discuss in detail each link in the chain of custody negated
the integrity of the evidence. This is misplaced:
x x x It must be remembered that testimony about a

perfect chain is not always the standard as it is almost
always impossible to obtain an unbroken chain. As such,
what is of importance is the preservation of the integrity
and evidentiary value of the seized items. The integrity of
the evidence is presumed to be preserved, unless there is a
showing of bad faith, ill will, or proof that the evidence has been
tampered.34 (Emphasis supplied)
In People v. Mali,35 we held:
The corpus delicti in dangerous drugs cases constitutes the

dangerous drug itself. To sustain conviction, its identity must be
established in that the substance bought during the buy-bust
operation is the same substance offered in court as exhibit. The
chain of custody requirement performs this function as it ensures
that unnecessary doubts concerning the identity of the evidence
are removed.36
In this case, the prosecution was able to show that the

same drugs seized and marked by IO1 Mangili were the
same ones he identified at the trial.37 Further, the records
consistently show that the markings on the bricks of
marijuana consisted of the initials and signature of IO1
Mangili, the date and A, B, C, or D, as evidenced by the
photograph38 taken during the inventory and the chemistry
report describing the submitted specimen as follows:
_______________
34 Supra note 25 at p. 597; p. 601.

35 G.R. No. 206738, 11 December 2013, 712 SCRA 776.
36 Id., at p. 795.
37 TSN, 12 May 2010, pp. 31-32.
38 Exhibit “I” marked on 12 May 2010. Records, p. 51.
60

People vs. Breis
A-One (1) carton knot tied with gray plastic straw

labeled GINEBRA SAN MIGUEL with markings ‘02-10-
2010 ELM and signature,’ containing four (4) bricks of
dried suspected marijuana fruiting tops each wrapped with
plastic and further wrapped with brown packaging tape
with the following markings and recorded net weights:
A-1 = [02-10-2010-A ELM and signature] = 2000.1 grams

A-2 = [02-10-2010-B ELM and signature] = 2158.3 grams
A-3 = [02-10-2010-C ELM and signature] = 2051.1 grams
A-4 = [02-10-2010-D ELM and signature] = 1971.5 grams39
(Emphasis supplied)
The presumption is that the PDEA agents performed

their duties regularly. There being no evidence showing
bad faith, ill will or proof that the evidence has been
tampered, we find that the prosecution sufficiently
established the chain of custody. Consequently, the corpus
delicti was also established.
Warrantless Search and Seizure and Arrest
Although it was not raised as an error, it is imperative

that we rule on the validity of the warrantless search and
seizure and the subsequent warrantless arrest of
appellants.
It is well-settled that no arrest, search and seizure can
be made without a valid warrant issued by a competent
judicial authority. No less than the Constitution
guarantees this right —
The right of the people to be secure in their persons,
houses, papers, and effects against unreasonable searches
and seizures of whatever nature and for any
_______________
39 Id., at p. 34.
61
VOL. 767, AUGUST 17, 2015 61

People vs. Breis
purpose shall be inviolable, and no search warrant or

warrant of arrest shall issue except upon probable cause to
be determined personally by the judge after examination
under oath or affirmation of the complainant and the
witnesses he may produce, and particularly describing the
place
40
to be searched and the persons or things to be seized.
Further, any evidence obtained in violation of this
provision is inadmissible for any purpose in any
proceeding.41 However, the rule against warrantless
searches and seizures admits of exceptions, such as the
search of moving vehicles. In People v. Libnao,42 the Court
held:
Warrantless search and seizure of moving vehicles are allowed

in recognition of the impracticability of securing a warrant under
said circumstances as the vehicle can be quickly moved out of the
locality or jurisdiction in which the warrant may be sought. Peace
officers in such cases, however, are limited to routine checks
where the examination of the vehicle is limited to visual
inspection. When a vehicle is stopped and subjected to an
extensive search, such would be constitutionally permissible only
if the officers made it upon probable cause, i.e., upon a belief,
reasonably arising out of circumstances known to the seizing
officer, that an automobile or other vehicle contains a[n] item,
article or object which by law is subject to seizure and destruction.
43
Although the term eludes exact definition, probable

cause signifies a reasonable ground of suspicion supported
by circumstances sufficiently strong in themselves to
warrant a cautious man’s belief that the person accused is
guilty of the offense with which he is charged; or the
existence of such facts and circumstances which could lead
a reasonably dis-
_______________
40 1987 Constitution, Article III, Section 2.

41 1987 Constitution, Article III, Section 3(2).
42 G.R. No. 136860, 20 January 2003, 395 SCRA 407.
43 Id., at p. 414.
62

People vs. Breis
creet and prudent man to believe that an offense has been

committed and that the items, articles or objects sought in
connection with said offense or subject to seizure and
destruction by law are in the place to be searched.44 The
determination of probable cause must be resolved according
to the facts of each case.45
The Court has ruled in several dangerous drug cases46
that tipped information is sufficient probable cause to effect
a warrantless search. In People v. Mariacos,47 the police
received at dawn information that a baggage of marijuana
was loaded on a passenger jeepney about to leave for the
poblacion. There, the informant described the bag
containing the prohibited drugs. The Court held that the
police had probable cause to search the packages allegedly
containing illegal drugs.48
In the present case, the vehicle that carried the

prohibited drugs was about to leave. The PDEA agents
made a judgment call to act fast, as time was of the
essence. The team arrived at the terminal around 15
minutes49 before the bus was scheduled to depart. Upon
boarding the bus, IO1 Mangili and IO1 Peralta identified
two men fitting the description given by the informant in
possession of a box described50 by the informant to contain
marijuana.
_______________
44 People v. Valdez, 363 Phil. 481, 489; 304 SCRA 140, 148 (1999).
45 People v. Ayangao, 471 Phil. 379, 388; 427 SCRA 428, 433-434
(2004).
46 People v. Ayangao, id.; People v. Libnao, supra note 42; People v.
Valdez, supra; People v. Mariacos, 635 Phil. 315; 621 SCRA 327 (2010).
47 People v. Mariacos, id.
48 Id., at p. 331; p. 342.
49 TSN, 7 July 2010, p. 17.
50 In contrast to Mariacos, the confidential informant in the present
case not only described the box, but also the appearances and clothing of
appellants, thus:
Q The description given was the height and the built (sic) only, correct?
63
VOL. 767, AUGUST 17, 2015 63

People vs. Breis
Moreover, the PDEA agents had reasonable suspicion

based on appellants’ behavior that the latter were probably
committing a crime. IO1 Mangili casually asked appellant
Yumol who owned the box at their (appellants’) feet. After
answering that it belonged to them (appellants), Yumol
suddenly stood up and tried to leave. IO1 Peralta
prevented him from getting off the bus. Then IO1 Mangili
asked appellant Breis what was contained in the box.
Instead of answering, Breis shoved IO1 Mangili and tried
to flee. It must be noted that IO1 Mangili identified himself
as a PDEA agent before either appellant tried to leave the
bus:
Q And you wanted to confirm your suspicion by asking from

Gary Yumol who owns the box?
A Yes, sir.
Q And Gary Yumol, of course, did not give you any answer?
A He said that it is theirs.

Q Did you also talk to the companion of Gary Yumol?
A After Gary stood up suddenly I also spoke to Regie
Breis.
Q And did he also give you any answer?
A He just pushed me and tried to leave the bus.
xxxx
Q Before you talked to Gary Yumol did you identify
yourself as PDEA agents?
A When I asked him who owns the box, I then
identified myself.
Q Did you ask them if you can see the contents of the box?
A I told Regie to open the box but he did not want that’s why
I was the one who opened it.
_______________
A And also the clothes they are wearing and the description of the box.
(TSN, 7 July 2010, p. 13)
64

People vs. Breis
Q Gary Yumol according to you stood up?

A Yes, sir.
Q And when he stood up, he was held by Agent Peralta?
A Yes, sir.
Q And Regie Breis also stood up after you talked to him?
A Yes, sir.
Q But he was also held by Agent Peralta?
A I was the one who told him to sit down.
Q Before you told him to sit down did you introduce yourself as a
PDEA agent?
A Yes, sir.51 (Emphasis supplied)
Appellants’ act of standing up to leave the bus under

different circumstances may be natural; but it is not so in
this case. In People v. Aminnudin,52 the warrantless arrest
of Aminnudin based on an informant’s tip that he was
carrying marijuana was declared unconstitutional because
there was no outward indication that called for his arrest.
There, the Court found that “[t]o all appearances, he was
like any of the other passengers innocently disembarking

from the vessel.”53
In contrast to the instant case, appellants were
attempting to get out of a bus that was about to leave the
terminal, and not one that had just arrived, where the
other passengers were, as can be expected, seated in
preparation for departure. It is unnatural for passengers to
abruptly disembark from a departing bus, leaving their
belongings behind. Any reasonable observer would be put
on suspicion that such persons are probably up to no good.
To a trained law enforcement agent, it signaled the
probability that appellants were committing an offense and
that the objects left behind might be contraband or even
dangerous articles.
_______________
51 TSN, 7 July 2010, pp. 21-23.

52 246 Phil. 424; 163 SCRA 402 (1988).
53 Id., at p. 434; p. 409.
65
VOL. 767, AUGUST 17, 2015 65

People vs. Breis
Indeed, as observed by the PDEA agents, appellants

were not simply passengers carrying a box in a bus. They
engaged in suspicious behavior when they tried to flee after
IO1 Mangili showed interest in their box and identified
himself as a PDEA agent. Worse, in his attempt at flight,
Breis pushed IO1 Mangili, already knowing that the latter
was a PDEA agent. This brazen act on the part of Breis
only cemented the belief that appellants were likely hiding
a wrongdoing and avoiding capture by law enforcers.
The act of Breis in physically pushing IO1 Mangili and
attempting to flee constitutes resistance defined under
Article 151 of the Revised Penal Code (RPC).54 Before a
person can be held guilty of the crime of resistance or
disobedience to a person in authority, it must be shown
beyond reasonable doubt that the accused knew that the
person he disobeyed or resisted is a person in authority or
the agent of such person who is actually engaged in the
performance of his official duties.55
When the disobedience to an agent of a person in
authority is not of a serious nature, the penalty of arresto
menor or a fine ranging from 10 to 100 pesos shall be
imposed upon the offender.
As a PDEA agent, IO1 Mangili is a law enforcement

agent and as such is an agent of a person in authority as
defined in the RPC.56 IO1 Mangili was in the act of
investigating a lead, and possibly apprehending violators of
RA 9165, in accordance with the mandate of the PDEA.57
He announced his
_______________
54 Art. 151. Resistance and disobedience to a person in authority or

the agents of such person.—The penalty of arresto mayor and a fine not
exceeding 500 pesos shall be imposed upon any person who not being
included in the provisions of the preceding articles shall resist or seriously
disobey any person in authority, or the agents of such person, while
engaged in the performance of official duties.
55 Vytiaco v. Court of Appeals, 126 Phil. 48, 59; 19 SCRA 744, 753
(1967).
56 United States v. Taylor, 6 Phil. 162 (1906).
57 Republic Act No. 9165, provides in part:
Sec. 82. Creation of the Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency (PDEA).—
To carry out the provisions of this Act, the Philip-
66

People vs. Breis
identity as such agent to appellants. It may even be

gleaned that knowing that IO1 Mangili was a PDEA agent
was precisely the cause of the attempted flight of
appellants.
The laying of hands or using physical force against
agents of persons in authority when not serious in nature
constitutes resistance or disobedience under Article 151,
and not direct assault under Article 148 of the RPC.58 This
is because the gravity of the disobedience to an order of a
person in authority or his agent is measured by the
circumstances surrounding the act, the motives prompting
it and the real importance of the transgression, rather than
the source of the order disobeyed.59 The pushing of IO1
Mangili is not of such serious defiance to be considered
direct assault, but is resistance nonetheless.
_______________
pine Drug Enforcement Agency (PDEA), which serves as the

implementing arm of the Board, and shall be responsible for the efficient
and effective law enforcement of all the provisions on any dangerous drug
and/or controlled precursor and essential chemical as provided in this Act.
xxxx
Sec. 84. Powers and Duties of the PDEA.—The PDEA shall:
xxxx
b) Undertake the enforcement of the provisions of Article II of this Act
relative to the unlawful acts and penalties involving any dangerous drug
and/or controlled precursor and essential chemical and investigate all
violators and other matters involved in the commission of any crime
relative to the use, abuse or trafficking of any dangerous drug and/or
controlled precursor and essential chemical x x x;
xxxx
d) Arrest and apprehend as well as search all violators and seize or
confiscate, the effects or proceeds of the crimes as provided by law and
take custody thereof, for this purpose the prosecutors and enforcement
agents are authorized to possess firearms, in accordance with existing
laws.
xxxx
58 Supra note 56.
59 People v. Chan Fook, 42 Phil. 230 (1921).
67
VOL. 767, AUGUST 17, 2015 67

People vs. Breis
The Court has held justified resistance to illegal or
abusive acts of agents of persons in authority. In Chan
Fook,60 the Court quoted Groizard:
A person in authority, his agent or a public officer who exceeds

his power can not be said to be in the exercise of the functions of
his office. The law that defines and establishes his powers does
not protect him for anything that has not been provided for.
The scope of the respective powers of public officers and their
agents is fixed. If they go beyond it and they violate any
recognized rights of the citizens, then the latter may resist the
invasion, specially when it is clear and manifest. The resistance
must be coextensive with the excess, and should not be greater
than what is necessary to repel the aggression.
The invasion of the prerogatives or rights of another and the
excess in the functions of an office, are the sources that make for
legitimate resistance, especially, insofar as it is necessary for the
defense of the persons or their rights in the manner provided for
in Article 8 of the Penal Code.61
Unlike the officer in Chan Fook, IO1 Mangili did not

exceed his authority in the performance of his duty. Prior
to Breis’ resistance, IO1 Mangili laid nary a finger on Breis
or Yumol. Neither did his presence in the bus constitute an

excess of authority. The bus is public transportation, and is
open to the public. The expectation of privacy in relation to
the constitutional right against unreasonable searches in a
public bus is not the same as that in a person’s dwelling. In
fact, at that point in time, only the bus was being searched,
not Yumol, Breis, or their belongings, and the search of
moving vehicles has been upheld.
_______________
60 Id.
61 Id., at pp. 233-234; citing 3 Groizard, p. 456, et seq.
68

People vs. Breis
Moreover, appellants are not in any position to claim

protection of the right against unreasonable searches as to
the warrantless search of the bus. The pronouncement of
the United States Supreme Court (USSC) in Rakas v.
Illinois62 regarding the Fourth Amendment rights63 is
instructive:
Fourth Amendment rights are personal rights, which, like

some other constitutional rights, may not be vicariously asserted.
A person who is aggrieved by an illegal search and seizure only
through the introduction of damaging evidence secured by a
search of a third person’s premises or property has not had any of
his Fourth Amendment rights infringed. And since the
exclusionary rule is an attempt to effectuate the guarantees of the
Fourth Amendment, it is proper to permit only defendants whose
Fourth Amendment rights have been violated to benefit from the
rule’s protections.64 (Citations omitted)
It being established that IO1 Mangili was not in

violation of Yumol’s or Breis’ rights as he was searching the
bus, there is no excess of authority, clear and manifest or
otherwise, for either Yumol or Breis to lawfully resist.
Hence, the act of Breis in pushing IO1 Mangili was an
unlawful resistance to an agent of a person in authority,
contrary to Article 151 of the RPC.
Breis’ commission of a crime in view of, and against IO1
Mangili, and proclivity for resorting to acts of violence
further justify the warrantless search of appellants.
_______________
62 439 U.S. 128, 99 S.Ct. 421, 58 L.Ed.2d 387 (1978).

63 The Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution, similar
to Section 2 of our Bill of Rights, states:
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers,
and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be
violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported
by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be
searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
64 Id.
69
VOL. 767, AUGUST 17, 2015 69

People vs. Breis
A further point. Appellants each attempted to alight

from a departing bus, leaving behind their belongings.
They may be deemed to have abandoned the box in their
flight. A thing is considered abandoned and possession
thereof lost if the spes recuperandi (the hope of recovery) is
gone and the animus revertendi (the intention of returning)
is finally given up.65 That appellants got up to leave a
departing bus without bringing their box points to the
absence of both spes recuperandi and animus revertendi.
Indeed, although their flight was thwarted by the PDEA
agents, both appellants intended to leave the box behind
without returning for it. Abandonment has the effect of
converting a thing into res nullius.66
In the United States, abandoned articles, such as those
thrown away, are considered bona vacantia, and may be
lawfully searched and seized by law enforcement
authorities.67 Put to question in Abel v. United States68 was
the admissibility of incriminating articles, which had been
thrown away, that the Federal Bureau of Investigation
recovered without warrant. The USSC held that the
articles were abandoned and that there was nothing
unlawful in the government’s appropriation of such
abandoned property.69 In Hester v. United States,70
defendants and his associates ran away from officers, and
in the process discarded a jar and a jug. The USSC held no
Fourth Amendment violation occurred when officers
examined the contents of the discarded items without
warrant.71 In California v. Hodari,72 police officers, without
warrant, pursued defendant who threw a rock of cocaine
into an alley as
_______________
65 Domalsin v. Valenciano, 515 Phil. 745, 764; 480 SCRA 114, 132
(2006).
66 Yu v. De Lara, 116 Phil. 1105; 6 SCRA 785 (1962).
67 Abel v. United States, 362 U.S. 217 (1960).
68 Id.
69 Id.
70 265 U.S. 57 (1924).
71 Id.
72 499 U.S. 621 (1991).
70

People vs. Breis
he was running. The USSC upheld the admissibility of the

abandoned cocaine.73
Applied analogously, there is no objectionable
warrantless search and seizure of the box of marijuana
abandoned in the bus by appellants.
Given the above discussion, it is readily apparent that
the search in this case is valid.
Having been found with prohibited drugs in their
possession, appellants were clearly committing a criminal
offense in the presence of IO1 Mangili and IO1 Peralta. The
subsequent warrantless arrest falls under Section 5(a),
Rule 113 of the Rules of Court:
SEC. 5. Arrest without warrant; when lawful.—A peace

officer or a private person may, without a warrant, arrest a
person:
(a) When, in his presence, the person to be arrested has
committed, is actually committing, or is attempting to
commit an offense.
xxxx
Hence, the warrantless arrest of appellants is lawful.
Defenses of Denial and Frame-Up
Appellants’ defenses of denial and frame-up were

disbelieved by both the trial court and the Court of
Appeals. It is a settled rule that the evaluation of the
credibility of witnesses and their testimonies is a matter
best undertaken by the trial court because of its unique
opportunity to observe the witnesses firsthand and to note
their demeanor, conduct and attitude under grilling
examination.74 We find no reason to deviate from this rule.
_______________
73 Id.
74 People v. Sapigao, Jr., 614 Phil. 589, 599; 598 SCRA 416, 425-426
(2009).
71
VOL. 767, AUGUST 17, 2015 71

People vs. Breis
The defenses of denial and frame-up cannot prevail over

the positive and categorical assertions of the PDEA agents
who were strangers to appellants and against whom no ill
motive was established.75 Further, such defenses failed to
overcome the documentary and physical evidence
presented by the prosecution.
In light of the foregoing, appellants’ conviction for illegal
possession of dangerous drugs is in order.
Penalty for Illegal Possession of Dangerous Drugs
The penalty for illegal possession of dangerous drugs is

provided in Section 11 of RA 9165:
SEC. 11. Possession of Dangerous Drugs.—The penalty of life

imprisonment to death and a fine ranging from Five hundred
thousand pesos (P500,000.00) to Ten million pesos
(P10,000,000.00) shall be imposed upon any person, who, unless
authorized by law, shall possess any dangerous drug in the
following quantities, regardless of the degree of purity thereof:
xxxx
7) 500 grams or more of marijuana.
xxxx
The penalty imposed upon appellants is in order.

WHEREFORE, the appeal is DISMISSED. The
Decision dated 26 June 2012 of the Court of Appeals in
C.A.-G.R. CR-H.C. No. 04916, affirming the Decision dated
14 February 2011 of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 61,
Baguio City in Criminal Case No. 30409-R, is AFFIRMED.
SO ORDERED.
_______________
75 People v. De Jesus, supra note 23 at pp. 688-689.
72

People vs. Breis
Brion, Del Castillo, Mendoza and Leonen, JJ., concur.
Appeal dismissed, judgment affirmed.
The marking by the arresting officer of the drugs, being

the starting point in the custodial link, should be made
immediately upon the seizure, or, if that is not possible, as
close to the time and place of the seizure as practicable
under the obtaining circumstances. (People vs. Angngao,
752 SCRA 531 [2015])
——o0o——
© Copyright 2024 Central Book Supply, Inc. All rights reserved.

People vs. Breis, 767 SCRA 40, August 17, 2015

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

People vs. Breis, 767 SCRA 40, August 17, 2015

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

People vs. Breis, 767 SCRA 40, August 17, 2015

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

3/9/24, 3:21 PM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 767 Copy

G.R. No. 205823. August 17, 2015.*

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, appellee, vs. REGIE

Criminal Law; Dangerous Drugs Act; Chain of Custody Rule;

VOL. 767, AUGUST 17, 2015 41

cation, physically inventory and photograph the same

required to sign the copies of the inventory and be given a copy

42 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

hending officer; second, the turnover of the illegal drug seized

turnover and submission of the marked illegal drug seized from

VOL. 767, AUGUST 17, 2015 43

that an automobile or other vehicle contains a[n] item, article

Same; Same; Same; Probable Cause; Although the term eludes

44 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

the performance of his official duties.—The act of Breis in

(RPC). Before a person can be held guilty of the crime of

VOL. 767, AUGUST 17, 2015 45

cially when it is clear and manifest. The resistance must be

is necessary to repel the aggression. The invasion of the

46 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

of the abandoned cocaine. Applied analogously, there is no

APPEAL from a decision of the Court of Appeals.

This is an appeal from the Decision1 dated 26 June 2012

Appellants Regie Breis y Alvarado (Breis) and Gary

Section 11 of Republic Act No. 9165 (RA 9165) as follows:

That in the afternoon of February 10, 2010, at Gov. Pack Road,

Upon arraignment, appellants pleaded not guilty. Trial

1 Rollo, pp. 2-16. Penned by Associate Justice Rebecca De Guia-

48 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Peralta) of the Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency-

Version of the Prosecution

The prosecution’s version of the facts, as summarized by

Around 3:00 o’clock PM of February 10, 2009 (sic), an

accused have been frequently traveling from Pampanga to Baguio

VOL. 767, AUGUST 17, 2015 49

Upon reaching the bus terminal, Mangili asked the bus

of answering, Breis shoved Mangili and tried to flee but Mangili

50 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Thereafter, the team returned to the PDEA-CAR office of

Version of the Defense

The defense’s version of the facts, as summarized by the

Accused, both construction workers, left Dau, Mabalacat,

number of Edwin Garcia, they took a chance and decided to take a

4 Records, pp. 179-180.

VOL. 767, AUGUST 17, 2015 51

boarded when accused Yumol stepped out to buy a bottle of water.

The Trial Court’s Ruling

The trial court gave credence to the prosecution’s

5 Id., at pp. 180-181.

52 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

WHEREFORE, judgment is rendered finding the accused Regie

The lone assignment of error in the Brief for the

THE TRIAL COURT GRAVELY ERRED IN FINDING THE

In their appeal, appellants argued that the PDEA agents

The Court of Appeals’ Ruling

The Court of Appeals affirmed the decision of the trial

WHEREFORE, the foregoing premises considered, the

VOL. 767, AUGUST 17, 2015 53